[Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name

Neal Evenhuis neale at bishopmuseum.org
Wed Aug 22 17:59:12 CDT 2018


Al,

10.1.1 refers to the “work” [= the “publication of the data”]. The work was not interrupted. Only the qualifying conditions were “incomplete”. 10.1.1 does not come into play here.

-Neal


Neal L. Evenhuis, PhD.
Senior Entomologist

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, HI 96817-2704
Office: (808) 848-4138
Fax: (808) 847-8252
BishopMuseum.org<www.bishopmuseum.org>


From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>> on behalf of Alfred Newton <anewton at fieldmuseum.org<mailto:anewton at fieldmuseum.org>>
Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 12:55 PM
To: "Yanega, Doug" <dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>>
Cc: taxacom <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU<mailto:TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>>, parahym <parahym at nhm.ac.uk<mailto:parahym at nhm.ac.uk>>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Questions about availability of a species name

Hi Doug,

What about the effect of Art. 10.1.1 on this situation?

10.1.1. If publication of the data relating to a new nominal taxon or a
nomenclatural act is interrupted and continued at a later date, the name or
act becomes available only when the requirements of the relevant Articles
have been met.


If indication of type depository was the only missing piece of information
in the original description (Li et al. 2009), and
Ranjith et al. (2015) supplied that information along with a reference to
the original description (which had all the other elements), then it would
seem that the name would become available from Ranjith et al. (with them as
authors).  This is how I and some others have used that article (at least
implicitly) for this exact situation, which unfortunately is all too common.

Why does this not work?

Al.
Alfred F. Newton, Curator Emeritus
Integrative Research Center (Insect Division)
Field Museum of Natural History
1400 South Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60605 USA
Telephone (direct):  312-665-7738; Fax (Zoology):  312-665-7754
FMNH personal web page:  <http://fieldmuseum.org/users/alfred-newton>
Austral Staphyliniformia databases: <
<http://www.fieldmuseum.org/peet_staph/>
http://archive.fieldmuseum.org/peet_staph/>

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu<mailto:dyanega at ucr.edu>> wrote:

On 8/22/18 2:24 PM, Fernandez, Jose wrote:

Hi all,

I would greatly appreciate some help/comments on the following topic. I
have added a "Right?" to the  end of my paragraphs to mark my questions
(and NOT because I think that I am necessarily right!). Hopefully you can
clarify me the situation.

Microplitis vitellipedis Li, Tan & Song was described in 2009 from China
The original paper did not state the holotype depository. Thus, the species
name is unavailable under the current ICZN. Right?

Then in 2015 a taxonomic review of the Oriental species of Microplitis
refers to that species. It states that the holotype is deposited in the
Hunan Agricultural University, China. That happens to be the institution
which the authors of the original description were affiliated with (at
least at the time of the 2009 publication). The 2015 paper, from Indian
researchers, states that "the type specimen of this species could not be
examined" and that they based their species description, illustration and
place in the key to Oriental Microplitis species on specimens from India
that they actually examined. I am not sure if the 2015 authors contacted
the Chinese colleagues to verify that the type was indeed deposited in the
Hunan Agricultural University, China. But that may be beyond the point,
because what matters is that, if the type depository was explicitly (and
clearly) stated in the 2015 paper, then that would comply with the ICZN
requirements and thus would make the name Microplitis vitellipedis Li, Tan
& Song available. Right?

Assuming that the two previous paragraphs are correct, then my last
question is, how to refer to that species? I mean the species name and
authors would remain the same, but the actual date assigned to that name
should be 2015 (the moment when the species name fulfilled all criteria to
be considered an available name, sensu ICZN) and not 2009. Right? Should it
be then Microplitis vitellipedis Li, Tan & Song 2015? Is there something
there that I may be missing? Or some assumptions that are wrong? Or better
ways to interpret the situation?

[If someone is interested in checking the cited references, I will be
happy to send pdf copies off list (just send me an email for that). In any
case the two references are: a) Original Description Reference: Li,
Xi-ying; Tan, Ji-cai and Song, Dong-bao. 2009. A new species of Microplitis
Foerster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae) of China.
Entomotaxonomia. 31(3):225-229; b) subsequent and so far only reference
known to me: Ranjith, A.P.; Rajesh, K.M. and Nasser, M.. 2015. Taxonomic
studies on Oriental Microplitis Foerster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae,
Microgastrinae) with description of two new species from South India.
Zootaxa. 3963(3):369-415].

From the information given, the name is still unavailable (a nomen nudum).

The relevant section of the Code is as follows, highlights added:

---
Article 16. Names published after 1999.

16.1. All names: intention of authors to establish new nominal taxa to be
explicit. Every new name published after 1999, including new replacement
names (nomina nova), *must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new*.

{snip}

16.4. Species-group names: fixation of name-bearing types to be explicit.
Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new
replacement name (a nomen novum), for which the name-bearing type of the
nominal taxon it denotes is fixed automatically [Art. 72.7], *must be
accompanied in the original publication**
*
16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype, or syntypes, for the
nominal taxon [Arts. 72.2, 72.3, 73.1.1, 73.2 and Recs. 73A and 73C], and,

16.4.2. where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a
statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection
and *a statement indicating the name and location of that collection*
---

Li et al. failed to comply with Art. 16.4 (16.4.2), and
Ranjith et al. failed to comply with Art. 16.1

Had Ranjith et al. stated the species was new, they would have been given
authorship, and not Li et al.

Under *outdated* editions of the Code, citing a prior-published
description associated with a previously unavailable name would - under
some circumstances - make that name available (often inadvertently), but
the 2000 Code edition added Article 16 to prevent this from ever happening
again. *You can no longer accidentally make a previously published name
available just by citing it*; you are either the author of a new name
yourself, or you are not. In this case, no one is, and the name is still a
nomen nudum.

There are still apparently lots of taxonomists familiar with the old Code
editions, and not the most recent edition, who have never read Article 16;
it's a very long list of papers over the past 18 years that violate 16.1
and/or 16.4, and they continue to be published, even in peer-reviewed
journals.

Sincerely,

--
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
              http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
   "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
         is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82


_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
http://taxacom.markmail.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at:
taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.

_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu<mailto:taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.


________________________________
This message is only intended for the addressee named above. Its contents may be privileged or otherwise protected. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this message or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply mail or by collect telephone call. Any personal opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily represent the views of the Bishop Museum.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list